My Uncles Barn bike, Value??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biscuit said:
Fullauto said:
They are just a bit too tame for me. And lardy. I suppose it's the comfort of a left foot gearchange that attracts most people, and the electric foot, but that doesn't make them "the best".

Maybe the most popular, but Hyundais are really popular too.

You've taken this much more personal than I intended. I never called YOU "pompous", only the content of your post. I'm not a young sprout either so please don't think of me as a smart-ass kid. Really makes no difference to anyone which bike you or anyone else for that matter thinks is the best Norton. At the end of the day it's the one you own and ride if you think it so. But you, (and going on the above quote from you) do seem to think a right side gearchange is a major deal. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why this is so. Surly you don't think the average bike riding human would have trouble with the right side concept? "Foot gear shift change and a handle bar clutch is for sissies", said the old Indian Chief rider. A mate of mine has a '74 Commando and besides my '75 I also ride a '68 BSA T Bolt and a '74 Trident. Four different bikes, three different shift patterns. We often swap around on rides and never seem to be too baffled by the gearboxes.

Again, please, I hope this is just conversation we're having. Like in the pup over pints. - Pete

I'm afraid I don't understand how you are attributing things to me that aren't really there. I don't take it personally, I'm just explaining my long held beliefs and the reasons for them. Refute my assertions if you wish, but do so in a logical manner.

Now, regarding the points brought up. I find that the right side gearchange IS a major deal, not among people of our generation generally, who have grown up using various gearchange patterns, but to younger ones who equate it to driving a car with a right foot clutch. I know owners of MKIIIs, almost as old as me, who have an aversion to the right foot change and wouldn't consider a bike based on this. One had a bad accident and said the right hand change was the culprit! Went for the brake and changed up instead. My other Norton actually has been converted to left foot change using a crappy linkage system. Ugh!
 
Fullauto said:
Refute my assertions if you wish, but do so in a logical manner.

Now, regarding the points brought up. I find that the right side gearchange IS a major deal, not among people of our generation generally, who have grown up using various gearchange patterns, but to younger ones who equate it to driving a car with a right foot clutch. I know owners of MKIIIs, almost as old as me, who have an aversion to the right foot change and wouldn't consider a bike based on this. One had a bad accident and said the right hand change was the culprit! Went for the brake and changed up instead.

!

I can't really agree or disagree with your assertions, rather, I respect your opinions. I did think the manner in which I presented my arguments was quite logical though.
Funny story. Quite a few years ago toward the end of the riding season done exclusively on the Norton, I took out the BSA, after a summer of slow progress work on it. Mindfull of the left vs. right gearchange (pattern the same) I had a fine ride until a brain-fart saw me stomping down on the brake for an intended down-shift at a corner. WHOOPSY!
 
Biscuit said:
Fullauto said:
Refute my assertions if you wish, but do so in a logical manner.

Now, regarding the points brought up. I find that the right side gearchange IS a major deal, not among people of our generation generally, who have grown up using various gearchange patterns, but to younger ones who equate it to driving a car with a right foot clutch. I know owners of MKIIIs, almost as old as me, who have an aversion to the right foot change and wouldn't consider a bike based on this. One had a bad accident and said the right hand change was the culprit! Went for the brake and changed up instead.

!


I can't really agree or disagree with your assertions, rather, I respect your opinions. I did think the manner in which I presented my arguments was quite logical though.
Funny story. Quite a few years ago toward the end of the riding season done exclusively on the Norton, I took out the BSA, after a summer of slow progress work on it. Mindfull of the left vs. right gearchange (pattern the same) I had a fine ride until a brain-fart saw me stomping down on the brake for an intended down-shift at a corner. WHOOPSY!


I hear ya! I run a '99 Buell as well and I have been known, on the odd occasion, rarely, to make a mistake and jump on the wrong pedal.

One thing I've never understood is why BSA and Triumph suddenly turned around in the sixties (late fifties?)and reversed the traditional shift patterns.Weird.
 
Fullauto said:
One thing I've never understood is why BSA and Triumph suddenly turned around in the sixties (late fifties?)and reversed the traditional shift patterns.Weird.

Triumph didn't. :?
 
L.A.B. said:
Fullauto said:
One thing I've never understood is why BSA and Triumph suddenly turned around in the sixties (late fifties?)and reversed the traditional shift patterns.Weird.

Triumph didn't. :?

My mistake. So I presume BSA just decided to adopt Triumph's shift pattern? Any particular reason? Something to do with the merger? I thought that was later on.
 
Fullauto said:
L.A.B. said:
Triumph didn't. :?

My mistake. So I presume BSA just decided to adopt Triumph's shift pattern? Any particular reason? Something to do with the merger? I thought that was later on.

BSA bought Triumph in 1951, so some years before BSA reversed their gearchange pattern.

Perhaps riders actually preferred the Triumph pattern so BSA eventually decided to adopt it?
 
L.A.B. said:
Fullauto said:
L.A.B. said:
Triumph didn't. :?

My mistake. So I presume BSA just decided to adopt Triumph's shift pattern? Any particular reason? Something to do with the merger? I thought that was later on.

BSA bought Triumph in 1951, so some years before BSA reversed their gearchange pattern.

Perhaps riders actually preferred the Triumph pattern so BSA eventually decided to adopt it?

I can't think of another Brit manufacturer who went with the Triumph shift pattern. All the ones I can think of had first up and the rest down. Knowing the way the Brit industry worked, maybe it was a case of Triumph rubbing BSAs nose in it to show who was boss now. Even the Italians went with one up.
 
My first ride on a Jap bike ended in disaster. My friend let me try his new to him Honda. The front brake cable was broken so he cautioned me no to go too fast. I crashed it desperately shifting it. It was a poor transition from my BSA. Later I could make the change but now my only Brit is a MKIII and my kid's '79 Triumph, so I haven't had to think.

I travel to drive-on-the left countries all the time and make the change effortlessly so I suppose I'd be Ok. I was just in the USVI where they drive on the left with all LH drive cars!
 
Hey DuggyB,

As someone else who was/is in a pretty similar situation to you in terms of looking at the restoration end of that Norton, I would also go with the go for it camp, if at all possible. Since you asked, I kind of agree, from what I've seen of the market in Canada, and if you can convince him to let it go for something in the neighbourhood of $1500, you are not too badly off.

There is a great parts supplier in Canada, Walridge Auto in London, ON. Don't know where you are at, but it can at least save a PILE on shipping vs. ebay and the like or used out of the States at the moment. Their ordering process is more than a little archaic, but once you get over that it's alright.

I also was at a point of maybe buying my Uncles numbers matching '71 Commando from his family, but got a little lucky perhaps in that his best (and estate executor) friend had a word with them, and explained that the bike had really very little value as it sat, and was going to be hundred of hours invested to get it to run. They told me to come pick it up, and he asked me to just get it running at some point as payment. I got lucky, I know, but I also really understand the keeping a family piece of history in the family.

I've also done a fair bit of repair work on other vehicles, and a bunch of Japanese motorcycles, which frankly remain my favourite to work on, and collect. (To be fair, i hear the Commando is fun to ride, and I look forward to being able to.) But if you've got beyond the basic skill, I don't know how this would cost $8000. Granted, I am pretty willing to let ugly stay ugly, and never ever considered having anything re-chromed, or the like, so that changes the budget perspective on a lot of things, but I do consider I am doing a pretty thorough restoration to a safe, running bike which will be as reliable as these things can be expected to be, and I kind of think something like 3.5 to 4.5K isn't unrealistic. Maybe I hit 5K, firstly, I kind of doubt it gets that bad, and in the event I do, you would have to consider that i am a bit pedantic about replacing old wear items, so all the bearings, rubber, cables, gaskets, etc... etc... which might still be good, are going in the bin, and I replaced a fair bit of stuff internally that maybe could have been re-used, pistons, rings, mains bearings, kibblewhite valves, etc... Considering that one is more complete than mine was when I got it, missing a seat, and mufflers, ($400+ for a start) I think you've got a fighting chance of having a running bike for a little less than at least a couple of the figures quoted here.

Hopefully your Uncle comes around, and lets it go to someone who cares a bit. I'd rather have my Uncle back than his bike, very much, but it does make me think he would appreciate the thorough method of the the rebuild, and maybe smile that it will get put back together, crappy orange metallic flake paint and all.

Best of Luck.

Cheers,
Jon
 
It's an interested thread.

The guy simply asked for a value figure.

But ended up being told his uncle was a mean old man with no respect for family 'cos he didn't just give it him for free!
 
Fast Eddie said:
It's an interested thread.

The guy simply asked for a value figure.

But ended up being told his uncle was a mean old man with no respect for family 'cos he didn't just give it him for free!

The original owner left it by the roadside so it was taken up by others with far more interesting stuff!
 
Fullauto said:
The original owner left it by the roadside so it was taken up by others with far more interesting stuff!

Well that's true, especially in about half of the world where it is still either not fun or just plain unrideble outside. BS'n makes one feel involved.
 
Biscuit said:
Fullauto said:
The original owner left it by the roadside so it was taken up by others with far more interesting stuff!

Well that's true, especially in about half of the world where it is still either not fun or just plain unrideble outside. BS'n makes one feel involved.

I'm well and truly involved then!
 
Hey all OP here and I am back. Still trying to get the bike and he still wants too much, not that I talk to him all that much to be honest. My dad(his brother) talks to him much more and we are slowly assuring him it isn't worth a whole lot. I feel this is a bit of a process but I will definitely keep you posted. If it hits that $1500 Mark I have decided I will purchase it purely to get it in my hands sooner, I don't want to wait 20 years for him to realize it's worth absolutely nothing and then not be able to ride with my dad. The $1500 alone will hopefully speed the process up. However it hasn't hot that price yet.

One day hopefully soon I will have this bike in my possession.


Cheers and I love that this thread stays alive.
 
grandpaul said:
I wouldn't sell it for less than $2,500 if it was mine. I'll bet it could fetch $3,000 on e-bay without dusting it off, if it has a clean title.

Actually, I'd dust it off, flush the carbs and gas tank, flush & change the oil & filter, install fresh plugs and a battery, new tires, sort the transmission, and then get $3,500 - $4,000 for it pretty easily. All of the above would cost me maybe $500 tops (I don't think the transmission issue is an expensive one).

If I was buying it, I'd LOVE to pay $2,000 for it!
Just reading through your thread again duggyb and I think that GP is pretty close to the mark considering the market today.
 
cjandme said:
grandpaul said:
I wouldn't sell it for less than $2,500 if it was mine. I'll bet it could fetch $3,000 on e-bay without dusting it off, if it has a clean title.

Actually, I'd dust it off, flush the carbs and gas tank, flush & change the oil & filter, install fresh plugs and a battery, new tires, sort the transmission, and then get $3,500 - $4,000 for it pretty easily. All of the above would cost me maybe $500 tops (I don't think the transmission issue is an expensive one).

If I was buying it, I'd LOVE to pay $2,000 for it!
Just reading through your thread again duggyb and I think that GP is pretty close to the mark considering the market today.
+1. For only a few hundred extra bucks, perhaps you could cut the crap, keep your uncle happy, get the bike in your hands sooner and start enjoying it sooner!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top